James Gunn dropped from GOTG 3

[Raiders]

Bottom Line:
If Gunn wouldn’t have written the tweets, he wouldn’t have gotten fired.

[XPac]

Or they're afraid that going back on their decision will have them lose face. They misjudged the situation and probably assumed at the time that firing him would be the quickest way to end the controversy, ala Roseanne. If they could go back and do it over again, I'm sure they would have handled things differently.

We'll never know for sure. Either way, they fired him then decided to not rehire him after reviewing the matter. So as far as Disney is concerned, this seems to be the right call for them.

[Kevinroc]

We'll never know for sure. Either way, they fired him then decided to not rehire him after reviewing the matter. So as far as Disney is concerned, this seems to be the right call for them.

Then they can expect to be called out from all corners for their decision. Given how unhappy the cast is with them, I almost wouldn't be surprised if Guardians 3 doesn't end up happening.

(Which at this point might be for the best.)

[XPac]

Then they can expect to be called out from all corners for their decision. Given how unhappy the cast is with them, I almost wouldn't be surprised if Guardians 3 doesn't end up happening.

(Which at this point might be for the best.)

Eh ... I think the movie will be fine, and Disney will be fine. But we'll see.

[AJBopp]

I think the real reason Disney fired Gunn so quickly was because they were worried that if they didn't, Cernovich would incite some lunatic to show up with a machine gun at one of their parks. If it had been anyone else besides Cernovich who dug up Gunn's tweets, Disney would have taken the time to carry out a full investigation before firing him, and so probably wouldn't have ended up firing him at all.

They still granted legitimacy to Cernovich. And Disney's reputation is still damaged.

Or they're afraid that going back on their decision will have them lose face. They misjudged the situation and probably assumed at the time that firing him would be the quickest way to end the controversy, ala Roseanne. If they could go back and do it over again, I'm sure they would have handled things differently.

We'll never know for sure. Either way, they fired him then decided to not rehire him after reviewing the matter. So as far as Disney is concerned, this seems to be the right call for them.

I think it should be remembered there's no indication that there is a "they" involved in the decision to fire Gunn. This doesn't appear to have been a decision reached through any sort of consensus. It was one man who publicly phrased his personal decision so forcefully that Disney the company had no way to back out of it, short of firing Horn as a prelude.

[Kevinroc]

Eh ... I think the movie will be fine, and Disney will be fine. But we'll see.

"Fine" can mean many different things. I'm not saying this mean the company will go down tomorrow or anything. But it will impact things in ways we might never know. Some talent (directors, actors, etc.) may be hesitant to work with Disney because they instantly rolled over for Cernovich. The bad press will continue throughout GotG 3's production. The cast is still unhappy (we all know Bautista is definitely out when his contract is up).

[XPac]

"Fine" can mean many different things. I'm not saying this mean the company will go down tomorrow or anything. But it will impact things in ways we might never know. Some talent (directors, actors, etc.) may be hesitant to work with Disney because they instantly rolled over for Cernovich. The bad press will continue throughout GotG 3's production. The cast is still unhappy (we all know Bautista is definitely out when his contract is up).

It very well might impact things we'll never either way. We're obviously not in Disneys shoes, so they're the only ones with an accurate idea of what sort of consequences they might deal with regards to firing or retaining Gunn. I'm sure stock holders, board members, advertisers, the entertainment industry and various other groups have likely given their 2 cents on the matter. And I'll wager all that ultimately went into Disneys decision. We'll never know the full impact all this had on them... but that frankly is why I'm doubtful they believed that this would all go away if they just ignored it. If it were that simply, I would still argue that's exactly what they would have done.


Either way, again I'm sure Disney will be fine. The movie IMO will still likely do well, and that's all Disney likely cares about in the long run.

[Star_Jammer]

"Impacting in ways which we will never know" is a flimsy point to argue anyway, because well...it kinda works both ways. And sideways. And upways.

We just...don't know.

[Kevinroc]

It very well might impact things we'll never either way. We're obviously not in Disneys shoes, so they're the only ones with an accurate idea of what sort of consequences they might deal with regards to firing or retaining Gunn. I'm sure stock holders, board members, advertisers, the entertainment industry and various other groups have likely given their 2 cents on the matter. And I'll wager all that ultimately went into Disneys decision. We'll never know the full impact all this had on them... but that frankly is why I'm doubtful they believed that this would all go away if they just ignored it. If it were that simply, I would still argue that's exactly what they would have done.


Either way, again I'm sure Disney will be fine. The movie IMO will still likely do well, and that's all Disney likely cares about in the long run.

This gives Disney WAY more credit than they deserve considering all the behind the scenes drama going on (not all of it related to GotG3). Horn made a bad decision, but he can't reverse it because it would destroy him just before he retires. Iger is also reportedly retiring soon. And there is no inherent successor to take over.

It's a mess. But it's clear Disney should not be given the benefit of the doubt, and I have no idea why you insist on giving them the benefit of the doubt.

"Impacting in ways which we will never know" is a flimsy point to argue anyway, because well...it kinda works both ways. And sideways. And upways.

We just...don't know.

It's not going to help them attract talent. To what extent it effects them, we don't know. But it's definitely going to be negatively. The cast is also very unhappy (with Bautista being the most vocal about his unhappiness.)

Do you think that's a good thing? Making the talent unhappy? Do you think that can effect things positively? Because that sounds ridiculous.

[Raiders]

Disney is a multi-billion dollar company, firing Gunn will have zero impact on them.

[XPac]

This gives Disney WAY more credit than they deserve considering all the behind the scenes drama going on (not all of it related to GotG3). Horn made a bad decision, but he can't reverse it because it would destroy him just before he retires. Iger is also reportedly retiring soon. And there is no inherent successor to take over.

It's a mess. But it's clear Disney should not be given the benefit of the doubt, and I have no idea why you insist on giving them the benefit of the doubt.



It's not going to help them attract talent. To what extent it effects them, we don't know. But it's definitely going to be negatively. The cast is also very unhappy (with Bautista being the most vocal about his unhappiness.)

Do you think that's a good thing? Making the talent unhappy? Do you think that can effect things positively? Because that sounds ridiculous.

Do I give Disney the benefit of the doubt as far as making the decisions which protect their own interests? Yes, because that's what big companies like Disney do. We're dealing with a multi-million dollar project, so decisions like this likely won't be taken lightly. Right or wrong, I don't believe they would make the decisions they do on some random whim. They made a decision, and when the opportunity arose to reverse that decision, they stuck with it. So for Disney at least, they believed this was the right decision to make even taking into account the controversy.

Again, we're not in Disneys shoes. We don't the sort of back and forth they're getting with stockholders and advertisers, etc. A company this size with this level of global exposure serves many masters. You may not think that is a factor in a decision making process of a company like this, but I personally find it naïve to assume it's not. You're asking why I insist on believing this is how business works? Simply put, because at this level this is how business works.

[Kevinroc]

Do I give Disney the benefit of the doubt as far as making the decisions which protect their own interests? Yes, because that's what big companies like Disney do. We're dealing with a multi-million dollar project, so decisions like this likely won't be taken lightly. Right or wrong, I don't believe they would make the decisions they do on some random whim. They made a decision, and when the opportunity arose to reverse that decision, they stuck with it. So for Disney at least, they believed this was the right decision to make even taking into account the controversy.

Again, we're not in Disneys shoes. We don't the sort of back and forth they're getting with stockholders and advertisers, etc. A company this size with this level of global exposure serves many masters. You may not think that is a factor in a decision making process of a company like this, but I personally find it naïve to assume it's not. You're asking why I insist on believing this is how business works? Simply put, because at this level this is how business works.

Big companies make terrible impulsive decisions all the time. These decisions are still made by people, after all.

[XPac]

Big companies make terrible impulsive decisions all the time. These decisions are still made by people, after all.

If they made a terrible impulsive decision, they could have reversed it. They didnt, so in the least it wasn't impulsive. By choosing to double down and not to change course, even in the face of controversy, it becomes a calculated decision.

[Kevinroc]

If they made a terrible impulsive decision, they could have reversed it. They didnt, so in the least it wasn't impulsive. By choosing to double down and not to change course, even in the face of controversy, it becomes a calculated decision.

Once again, at this point it is clear this is all about ego. It's pretty clear to many that this was an incredibly stupid decision, and it's going to negatively effect Disney going forward. Just saying "Disney will be fine" is missing the point entirely.

[XPac]

Once again, at this point it is clear this is all about ego. It's pretty clear to many that this was an incredibly stupid decision, and it's going to negatively effect Disney going forward. Just saying "Disney will be fine" is missing the point entirely.

But I'll repeat.... the many people who see this as an incredibly stupid decision aren't in the position Disney is in. You yourself earlier said we wouldn't know the consequennces of this, and that's precisely the point. We don't know the various forces that potentially effect Disneys decision making process. You argue it's all about ego, but how do you know it's not all about stockholders or advertisers? I can't say I know for a fact either... but the bottom line is that none of our opinions really count all that much because we're just a bunch of guys posting on an internet board. We're not the billion dollar company sitting at the center of the storm.

Will this have a negative effect on Disney? To a degree yes it probably will. And I'd argue the same potentially can be said about not firing him. But in all likelihood Disney will BARELY feel the difference either way, so they probably won't be losing too much sleep over it either way. They made a call, they stuck with it, and in the end the movie will probably still be a smash hit either way.